GOAT Discussions

And what is your point? I believe they both are equal(for now) but disagree with kiki who think Borg > Nadal.

Click to expand...

In fact, surfaces and schedules are so much different today than in Borg´s time that the only common thing both have is their terrific top spin and having the two best ever records at the French Open.While I think both are the two greatest clay courters ever, for the rest of the surfaces it is quite different.

In Borg´s time, grass was extremely fast, making it amazing how he could switch in15 days from the ultraslow RG clay to the Wimbledon turf...and winning three times in a row while doing soNadal´s only won Wimbleodn twice, and the grass court is now like clay, just a bit faster.It is no possible to compare but, of course, while Borg is one of the 4 best ever on grass ( Laver,Sampras,Federer and maybe Tilden would join him), Nadal is like Connors or Edberg: he only won 2 titles, not a big deal.Not even fifth or sixth tier on grass ( even his clay court rgass)

In Borg´s time fast indoor carpet was as important as hard court is today.In reverseal, hard court was a secondary surface in Borg´s era and carpet has become the same in Nadal´s era...Nadal won 2 majors ( 3 if we add OG 2008) on hard and none on carpet, Borg took three indoor majors and no major title on hard ( in spite of reaching 3 finals at the USO)

So, it looks pretty even here.

As a conclusion, Borg fared much much above Nadal on fast courts, and Nadal has a better record on slow courts.But Borg , retiring at 25, has a total of 14 majors and Nadal, AT 26, has a total of 12.

For me as a German, one of the most astounding things about Rosewall was, that Germany won the World Cup in Soccer in 1954 and 1974. In 1954, before my time, Fritz Walter captained the German team as heavy underdog against Hungary with Puskas. In 1974, a complete different gerneration was at work, when Beckenbauer's German team, again a heavy underdog against Holland, won over Cruyff's Netherlands. It was a good sign for Germany for the final Sunday, that the Wimbledon final had been played the day before, and the same man, still the same man, had lost the final to Drobny and Connors. In sports, 20 years are an eternity. That the Rosewall of 1974 was the same Rosewall of 1954, boggeled the mind.

Click to expand...

In 72 Germany won the Euro Cup...and Rosewall, the best ever WCT final.Just to find more similarities.

In 1970, Germany lost to Italy one of the best ever WC matches and Rosewall lost to Newcombe in a gruelling 5 sets final at London.

My theory is that the top groundstrokers tend to be the most consistent and Rosewall certainly was consistently great. You look at guys like Borg, Connor, Tilden, Lendl, Wilander (for a little while) Budge, Riggs and they rarely had bad losses.

Gonzalez was a serve and volleyer but he didn't mind groundstroking rallies.

Guys like Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Newcombe could occasionally had some bad losses. I think it's because of their high risk game. Just a theory. I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

You are right.

In fact, one of the amazing things looking backwards is that John Mc Enroe did not have too many bad loses when he was peaking, provided his risky serve and volley style and inspirational touch.If we look back from 1979 to 1985, just a few remarkable ones (by that I mean losing to a guy out of the top 30).If I can recall well, I think of Teltscher in Palm Springs, ( when Teltscher was not a top guy yet)Mc Namee at Rg, Francisco Gonzalez at the 1980 Cincinnati event, ...of course, he seldom visited the cc events...

No I'm not equating Rotterdam to the Australian Open in Nadal's time. I'm equating Rotterdam now to the Australian Open in Borg's time. There's a big difference there.

Imagine now if there was a slam that offered considerably less ranking points and prize money than the other 3 majors (and many non-slam tournaments for that matter), had absolutely terrible facilities, and was held at such an inconvenient time (so close to Christmas and for several years so soon before the more important Masters event). There would be withdrawals left, right and centre. That was the situation with the Aussie Open in Borg's time. Player's ranked outside the top 200 were getting direct entries into the Aussie Open during the mid to late 70s (despite the fact that it had a significantly smaller draw size to the other majors).

So using the Australian Open as some sort of yardstick when discussing Borg's career is stupid, as that ignores the context of his era. And yes many historians make an equally big mistake and judge Federer based on 60s and 70s standards (comparing Laver's overall title count to Federer's for instance is a utterly stupid).

Borg's career needs to be judged on the context of his era, i.e. when non-slam and invitational events were very lucrative and hence very important, when absolutely nobody cared about the grand slam title count including the players themselves, when there were only 3 proper majors a year, when the Masters and WCT Finals were hugely important tournaments etc.

Federer and Nadal's careers needs to be judged on the context of their eras, i.e. when grand slam counting is very important, when there are 4 equally important majors a year, when the non-slam events don't mean so much any more etc.

The players from the 70s and 80s like Borg and Connors probably get the worst deal. Some older historians judge them based on the context of the 60s Laver/Rosewall era and even previous eras, while some younger tennis fans judge them based on the context of the Sampras/Federer 90s and 00s era. i.e. looking at slams and nothing else. They are pretty much stuck in the middle.

Click to expand...

This is completely truth.Most posters here have not lives through the golden, yet struggling years of tennis, in the 70´s and 80´s and don´t know the inmense difference of title´s value compared to today.

WCT/Masters were much, but really much above an AO, who still deserved respect because of tradition ( and some true champs winning it).It did not change till AO recovered its prestige around the middle to end 80´s and WCT dissapeared due to financial trouble and Hunt´s lack of interest in the game he helped to bright in the early 70´s.

The importance of Borg, the first pop tennis star is even bigger outside the court than in the court.Nadal has not even 10% of Borg´s charisma and , as good as he is playing the game, his figure is just that of a midget comparing to Borg.

George W Bush also won 2 elections...can he be compared to Reagan who also won 2?

Dan, my goal was to show which players would have been the favourites for "open" majors. For instance I wanted to show that the famous amateurs like Emerson would not have won a single major...

I did not know that Kramer was injured in 1951.

I gave Hoad and Sedgman some credit. Over the long run , Pancho was simply stronger than both.

You underrate Gonzalez on clay. Don't forget that he reached SFs at Roland Garros at 21 and at 40 and that he won several clay tournaments.

Dan, It's not that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez are shown that good because I admire them. It's just the reverse: because they are so great, I admire them and must give them their due places in history.

Click to expand...

If anybody, only Hoad could have won a GS in the 50´s ( and he was the guy closer to).He was by far more complete than Gonzales on slow courts and much more powerful than Rosewall on clay.Hoad just one title? don´t make me laugh.

Gimeno beat Rosewall three times in pro majors and once in open majors.

He reached final of the AO, SF of Wimbledon, won French Open (only Laver and Rosewall absent) and lost to Smith in the 1972 US Open in five sets. That even as an old man. Santana did nothing in the open era at majors!

Click to expand...

Santana retired in 1970, aged 32.

His last match was an awsome cc exhibition against Rod Laver.Laver had just won the GS a year before.

borg with his style of play would've probably done better on slow HC than sampras tbh .....

Click to expand...

It's amazes me the gizo says Sampras was better than Borg on three of four surfaces when Borg crushes Sampras in lifetime winning percentage by 84% to 77%. The 84% is from his actual lifetime record. Seven percentage points is huge and Borg won 106 tournaments to Sampras' 64 in a much shorter career.

In fact, surfaces and schedules are so much different today than in Borg´s time that the only common thing both have is their terrific top spin and having the two best ever records at the French Open.While I think both are the two greatest clay courters ever, for the rest of the surfaces it is quite different.

In Borg´s time, grass was extremely fast, making it amazing how he could switch in15 days from the ultraslow RG clay to the Wimbledon turf...and winning three times in a row while doing soNadal´s only won Wimbleodn twice, and the grass court is now like clay, just a bit faster.It is no possible to compare but, of course, while Borg is one of the 4 best ever on grass ( Laver,Sampras,Federer and maybe Tilden would join him), Nadal is like Connors or Edberg: he only won 2 titles, not a big deal.Not even fifth or sixth tier on grass ( even his clay court rgass)

In Borg´s time fast indoor carpet was as important as hard court is today.In reverseal, hard court was a secondary surface in Borg´s era and carpet has become the same in Nadal´s era...Nadal won 2 majors ( 3 if we add OG 2008) on hard and none on carpet, Borg took three indoor majors and no major title on hard ( in spite of reaching 3 finals at the USO)

So, it looks pretty even here.

As a conclusion, Borg fared much much above Nadal on fast courts, and Nadal has a better record on slow courts.But Borg , retiring at 25, has a total of 14 majors and Nadal, AT 26, has a total of 12.

That´s the figures, rest is subjective

Click to expand...

kiki, What about Rosewall on grass? That guy won eight grasscourt majors and reached 27 SFs in grass majors. He was able to beat Laver twice in big grasscourt finals. Maybe a better record than Tilden.

If anybody, only Hoad could have won a GS in the 50´s ( and he was the guy closer to).He was by far more complete than Gonzales on slow courts and much more powerful than Rosewall on clay.Hoad just one title? don´t make me laugh.

Click to expand...

kiki, As you can see in my list, I gave Hoad three major wins. It could be that I underrated him a bit. I could give Hoad five majors but not more. Don't forget that Lew was rather inconsistent over a full year. I can't imagine that Hoad would win an open Grand Slam rather than Gonzalez.

Hoad cannot compete with Rosewall on clay or at the most only for a short period. Power does not mean too much on clay.

It's amazes me the gizo says Sampras was better than Borg on three of four surfaces when Borg crushes Sampras in lifetime winning percentage by 84% to 77%. The 84% is from his actual lifetime record. Seven percentage points is huge and Borg won 106 tournaments to Sampras' 64 in a much shorter career.

Click to expand...

Well which surfaces out of grass, indoors/carpet and hard courts would you consider Borg superior to Sampras on.

On grass Sampras did win the superbowl of tennis, Wimbledon, 2 more times than Borg which is a significant margin. I would argue that Borg did beat better players to win his Wimbledon titles than Sampras did, in Borg's case McEnroe, Connors, Nastase, Tanner, Gerulaitis etc, in Sampras's case, Agassi, a post-peak but still strong on grass Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter etc. Still 2 extra Wimbledon titles cannot be underestimated, and having watched both players a lot I would take a peak Sampras on grass over a peak Borg.

Indoors, Borg played in an era where there were two huge indoor tournaments that were almost on a par with the majors, the WCT Finals and Masters. Sampras didn't have that same luxury (the Grand Slam Cup which he won twice anyway really didn't compare to the prestigious Dallas event). Still he won 5 Masters titles in 9 years, while Borg won a combined total of 3 Masters/WCT Finals titles during his career. Borg did beat Connors, Tanner, McEnroe and Gerulaiti to win his 1979 Masters title, and McEnroe, Connors and Lendl to win his 1980 title, so again incredibly strong competition. Still he lost 3 out of his 4 finals in Dallas. Sampras did hold the joint record for most masters/yec titles with Lendl before Federer came along, which has to carry some weight. There was a greater percentage of indoor tournaments on the tour in Borg's era than Sampras's (when outdoor hard court events had now become much more common). Overall I would also rate a peak Sampras over a peak Borg indoors (on carpet) as well.

Obviously Borg hardly ever played on hard courts that much during his career. Sampras played much more on clay than Borg did on hard courts, and still didn't achieve anywhere near as much on his weakest surface. He had some very good quality tournament wins on hard such as the 1979 Canadian Open which he won without dropping a set, drubbing McEnroe in the final, and the big money 1979 and 1980 Las Vegas titles at Caesar's Palace (destroying Connors in the 1979 final). Still he couldn't quite pull it off at the US Open. Yes he got unlucky there on a few occasions but close doesn't get you the cigar.

I do agree with abmk that Borg was unlucky that there were no big slow hard court events on the tour during his career, and that he would have been well suited to that surface, probably more than Sampras. Sill Sampras won over 80% of his career matches on hard courts during his career (fast or slow). He won 3 US Open titles during his prime, one before his prime and one after it when everyone was writing him off. On a fast hard court I would also take a peak Sampras over a peak Borg. We never saw Borg on a slow hard court of course so no comparison can be made there. In a way that's a good thing as the rapid increase in slow hard court events (the most damaging surface on the body) over the years has been one of the worst things to happen to tennis, in my opinion.

Obviously the gulf between Borg and Sampras on clay was as wide as an ocean, and far greater than the gap between them on any other surface. And overall Borg was far stronger on his weakest surface than Sampras. I do also think that Borg had tougher competition during his prime than Sampras did as well. However I don't think it is unreasonable to rank Sampras ahead of him on all fast surfaces, as facing superior competition cannot fully compensate for less big titles on a particular surface.

As I said before overall I still give the edge to Borg anyway because I considered his domination and versatility to have been more impressive than Sampras's.

kiki, What about Rosewall on grass? That guy won eight grasscourt majors and reached 27 SFs in grass majors. He was able to beat Laver twice in big grasscourt finals. Maybe a better record than Tilden.

Click to expand...

fast grass suited the quick, smooth and technically perfect game of Rosewall.His slice off the Bh was a great weapon to come to the net with and he was a superb volleyer - and a great overhead for his size- as well.

You can be the greatest of your era, but to be the greatest of all time? You need a time machine to do that, and we unfortunately don't have one.

Honestly, the technology and playing conditions are far too different to realistically compare players between eras. It's like comparing who's greater, Ali or Jordan.

Click to expand...

I can understand you're confused because you are equating tennis to Ali/Jordan when boxing is totally different from a team sport(basketball). Technology has changed, but the objective of the game still remains the same....you still have to hit ball over the net, serve, hit a fh, bh, scoring system is the same....

Basketball has changed a lot and fans have no problem having Jordan as the greatest. Throughout history, they added 3 second violation, added 3 point range, increase the size of the paint(because Wilt was overwhelming his peers), and rules on defense vary from generation to generation.

kiki, Gonzales was clearly stronger than Emerson, and Gimeno was stronger than Santana (IMO).

Click to expand...

Gimeno had a more complete game but santana had genious inside and a much more match winner mentality.

Gonzales was a better player but in the mid 60´s, he was past prime while Emerson was the undisputed nº 1 in the am ranks and was peaking.results wise, they both share tier ( and I don´t doubt 1950´s Pancho was a far better player)

Santana won 4 amateur majors, the three greatest events in the world at least once.He beat the best am aussies at the 1965 and 1967 DC finals which took part on aussie grass.He developed tennis in Spain.

kiki, As you can see in my list, I gave Hoad three major wins. It could be that I underrated him a bit. I could give Hoad five majors but not more. Don't forget that Lew was rather inconsistent over a full year. I can't imagine that Hoad would win an open Grand Slam rather than Gonzalez.

Hoad cannot compete with Rosewall on clay or at the most only for a short period. Power does not mean too much on clay.

Click to expand...

Hoad has the lifetime edge on clay against Rosewall. We went through this.

fast grass suited the quick, smooth and technically perfect game of Rosewall.His slice off the Bh was a great weapon to come to the net with and he was a superb volleyer - and a great overhead for his size- as well.

Click to expand...

It is possible that if tennis were open in the 1950's, Rosewall (or Trabert) could have won one or more majors on grass. The field in the late fifties contained at least five all-time greats in peak form, and it is difficult seeing anyone getting a grand slam in a calendar year. Much easier in the sixties.

It is possible that if tennis were open in the 1950's, Rosewall (or Trabert) could have won one or more majors on grass. The field in the late fifties contained at least five all-time greats in peak form, and it is difficult seeing anyone getting a grand slam in a calendar year. Much easier in the sixties.

Click to expand...

We concurr that the late 50´s field, with Gonzales,Trabert,Hoad,Rosewall and Sedgman was one of the toughest ever.Imagine Kramer was 5 years younger and Laver 5 years older, and you get a dream field with 7 of the toughest players going against each other.

I can understand you're confused because you are equating tennis to Ali/Jordan when boxing is totally different from a team sport(basketball). Technology has changed, but the objective of the game still remains the same....you still have to hit ball over the net, serve, hit a fh, bh, scoring system is the same....

Basketball has changed a lot and fans have no problem having Jordan as the greatest. Throughout history, they added 3 second violation, added 3 point range, increase the size of the paint(because Wilt was overwhelming his peers), and rules on defense vary from generation to generation.

Click to expand...

Speaking of basketball I was checking out http://www.basketball-reference.com/ and the leader in all time win shares in Kareem Abdul Jabbar followed by Chamberlain. Jordan is fourth. However Jordan didn't play as long as Jabbar. It's interesting info and it also has the statistically best seasons ever.

We concurr that the late 50´s field, with Gonzales,Trabert,Hoad,Rosewall and Sedgman was one of the toughest ever.Imagine Kramer was 5 years younger and Laver 5 years older, and you get a dream field with 7 of the toughest players going against each other.

We concurr that the late 50´s field, with Gonzales,Trabert,Hoad,Rosewall and Sedgman was one of the toughest ever.Imagine Kramer was 5 years younger and Laver 5 years older, and you get a dream field with 7 of the toughest players going against each other.

As Jack Kramer once wrote: It would have been very different (in comparison to the real history...).

I hope for useful discussions.

I'm sorry for the not beautiful sight of thtis compilation.

Click to expand...

I have changed my "Open Era " majors and given Hoad just another place (AO 1959) instead of Gonzalez. It's so difficult to give Hoad more than four majors because Gonzalez was still at his peak then and Rosewall, Sedgman and Trabert also very strong. I fear that Dan Lobb still will not be satisfied....

Thanks, Mustard, for your interesting list. That's the kind of discussion I wanted to start. I'm glad that it concurs for large parts with my speculation.

If we add the doubtful years 1968 to 1972 where Laver and Rosewall would probably amass more majors (or have already won several of them) we come to the conclusion that Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would emerge the most prolific winners just followed by Kramer.

Of course, if there had been open fields, then we don't know how the amateur players would have responded to playing in the same field as the professionals. They might have been inspired, and that would have changed things.

What we've done above is take the years as they actually happened, i.e. when the top professional players were better, and predict the winners as it stood.

I could see arguing him as #1 in 1951 possibly but what year other than that? Maybe 1952 if you went out on a bit of a limb?

Click to expand...

The key word is arguably. I don't necessarily believe it but some have argued it in the past if I recall correctly. But 1952 is an arguable year. He won the US Pro Claycourt Champs, the Canadian Pro Champs, the US Pro over Gonzalez.

My point to Kiki was that Segura was not a journeyman as Kiki has written in the past. I don't necessarily believe Segura was the best in either year. The statement was to make a point.

Segura was a top 6 player in the pro ranks, with Hoad,Gonzales,Rosewall,Sedgman and Kramer being superior to him and Trabert a bit better.with such enormous competition, being ranked nº 6 is really high and that proves that Segura belonged to the elite.But was not in the same echelon as the true champions.

Segura was a top 6 player in the pro ranks, with Hoad,Gonzales,Rosewall,Sedgman and Kramer being superior to him and Trabert a bit better.with such enormous competition, being ranked nº 6 is really high and that proves that Segura belonged to the elite.But was not in the same echelon as the true champions.

Click to expand...

Segura was the second or third best player of the 1950s overall. Gonzales was way out on his own as the best of the decade, and second best of the decade was either Segura or Sedgman. I'm not really counting Kramer as he retired in early 1954, and only made brief returns thereafter.

Segura was the second or third best player of the 1950s overall. Gonzales was way out on his own as the best of the decade, and second best of the decade was either Segura or Sedgman. I'm not really counting Kramer as he retired in early 1954, and only made brief returns thereafter.

Click to expand...

I would probably agree with this. He was a consistent presence the entire decade pretty much, even if he was never the outright best for more than a year during it. Peak Kramer was better but he was hardly ever around the majority of the decade. Now if you compare him to Gonzales well he comes off looking poor by comparison, but that does not make him a second tier player. Thats like smashing Arantxa Sanchez Vicario down in the 90's because Steffi was in her own class, or Mandlikova because of Navratilova. He derserves more than that.

I would probably agree with this. He was a consistent presence the entire decade pretty much, even if he was never the outright best for more than a year during it. Peak Kramer was better but he was hardly ever around the majority of the decade. Now if you compare him to Gonzales well he comes off looking poor by comparison, but that does not make him a second tier player. Thats like smashing Arantxa Sanchez Vicario down in the 90's because Steffi was in her own class, or Mandlikova because of Navratilova. He derserves more than that.

I think, Trabert is a bit underrated here. His 1955 was one of the best amateur seasons ever, and he had to deal with both Hoad and Rosewall. Did the RG-Wim double and won Wim without losing a set. He probably was the best clay courter of the 50s, winning RG amateur and pro each twice. He lost quite heavily on his first pro tour with Gonzalez, but had to play indoors all the time, and seldom had a chance to get to hard courts and clay, which favored his game better. His strength was indeed his backhand, and a strong allcourt game, he was more a hard worker than a genius. I rank him behind Gonzalez, Sedgman in the mid 50s, but ahead of Segura and until 1955 ahead of Hoad and Rosewall.

How is Trabert ahead of Segura? Gonzales stopped Segura being a 6-time US Pro champion and a Wembley Pro champion, and Segura didn't have the chance to play a French Pro at Roland Garros until 1958. Segura also had his big improvements towards his peak form after his early pro years, unlike Trabert who had an awesome amateur year in 1955 (with all the prestigious majors to show for it) and then turned pro. I think Trabert's best victory was his 5-set win over Gonzales in the 1956 French Pro final. I also agree that Trabert was ahead of Hoad and Rosewall when they were amateurs.

I think, you have to rate champions both in their amateur and pro careers. Trabert had the way better amateur career, he was called the second coming of Kramer for a while, and had a respectable pro career, with fine wins at RG, the second a blitz on Rosewall, who was no slouch on clay. Seguras best pro results were in a time frame, the early 50s, when the pro game was in disarray, Kramer playing seldom, and Gonzalez in and out.

I agree that Trabert had a far superior amateur career to Segura, but that's because Trabert peaked earlier and became the best amateur player in the world before he turned professional. In contrast, Segura turned professional at the same time as Kramer. Segura was brilliant from 1950-1957 in the pros, though. It's a shame that there was no French Pro in nearly all those years and he was injured for the 1956 tournament.

I agree that Trabert had a far superior amateur career to Segura, but that's because Trabert peaked earlier and became the best amateur player in the world before he turned professional. In contrast, Segura turned professional at the same time as Kramer. Segura was brilliant from 1950-1957 in the pros, though. It's a shame that there was no French Pro in nearly all those years and he was injured for the 1956 tournament.

Click to expand...

Mustard, I agree. I rank Segura ahead of Trabert till 1956, both equal in 1957 and 1959. Interesting: for 1962 Segura was ahead of Trabert again, at 41.

I have changed my "Open Era " majors and given Hoad just another place (AO 1959) instead of Gonzalez. It's so difficult to give Hoad more than four majors because Gonzalez was still at his peak then and Rosewall, Sedgman and Trabert also very strong. I fear that Dan Lobb still will not be satisfied....

Click to expand...

No, not at all.
As we saw earlier, Hoad had 13 to 9 edge ON GRASS against Gonzales in 1958 and 1959, peak years for both, and three of the four majors in a hypothetical open tennis would have been on grass, the other on clay, where Hoad had a much better record than Gonzales. So I do not agree that Gonzales would be favoured.
Consider this. At the grand slam venues, Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Forest Hills, and Kooyong, Hoad's record against Gonzales all-time is 6 wins and 3 losses. So I think that Hoad has to ranked ahead in the majors.
Most of Gonzales "major" wins were indoors. Minor majors.

Thanks, Mustard, for your interesting list. That's the kind of discussion I wanted to start. I'm glad that it concurs for large parts with my speculation.

If we add the doubtful years 1968 to 1972 where Laver and Rosewall would probably amass more majors (or have already won several of them) we come to the conclusion that Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would emerge the most prolific winners just followed by Kramer.

Poor Hoad with only two majors. Don't tell this to Dan!

Click to expand...

I have already responded to this.
This reminds me of Eugene Scott'S Dream Tournament, where his all-time favouite players staged dramatic come-from-behind wins in a fantasy championship. Not much of a surprise, but, like the imaginary lists you and Mustard have suggested, it ignores the cold, hard reality of actual results.
As I said, Gonzales had no hope of a French Open win, yet you and Mustard give him several. Also, Gonzales had a losing record against Hoad on grass, a reality which you have chosen to ignore.
Dream on!